STATE v. SALEEM
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE In the Matter of: TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00) IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY. _______________________________ STATE OF ARIZONA, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. LEOPOLD SALEEM, Claimant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 14-0379 FILED 2-26-2015 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2012-018339 The Honorable Robert H. Oberbillig, Judge REVERSED AND REMANDED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Peter S. Spaw Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant Leopold Saleem, Ft. Grant Claimant/Appellee STATE v. SALEEM Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop joined. J O H N S E N, Judge: ¶1 The State appeals the superior court's grant of summary judgment in a civil forfeiture proceeding. We reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings. ¶2 After a drug dog alerted to currency in Leopold Saleem's bag at the airport, the State seized the currency for forfeiture. Saleem filed a claim of interest and in due course moved for summary judgment, arguing there was insufficient evidence to link the money to the sale or possession of drugs. See In re Twenty-Four Thousand Dollars ($24,000) in U.S. Currency, 217 Ariz. 199, 201, ¶ 7 (App. 2007). In response, the State argued that the drug-dog alert and Saleem's drug-related criminal history established a link sufficient to withstand summary judgment. The court granted Saleem's motion and the State appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes sections 12-120.21(A)(1), -2101(A)(1) (2015).1 ¶3 Saleem failed to file an answering brief after receiving notice of the appeal and notice of the filing deadline. We hold this failure constitutes a confession of reversible error. See Bugh v. Bugh, 125 Ariz. 190, 191 (App. 1980) ("Where debatable issues are raised, the failure of an appellee to file an answering brief constitutes a confession of reversible error."). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings. : ama Absent material revisions after the relevant date, we cite a statute's current version. 1 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
